Edmund is at least consistent, being idiotic in all his interactions and not just focusing on cocking up a few select areas.
- 1
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I was thinking Edmund was doing quite well resisting the temptation. Then you added that twist at the end. Lol Brilliant!
She fell in love with him, I suppose, while nursing him back to health, yes? I think I'm remembering this correctly.
I suppose such things were to be expected back then. The royal social club. Rarely kept secret for long, so drama ahead.
Renss
She fell in love with him, I suppose, while nursing him back to health, yes? I think I'm remembering this correctly.
I suppose such things were to be expected back then. The royal social club. Rarely kept secret for long, so drama ahead.
Renss
- 1
Edmund doing all his thinking with his 'little head' could eventually get him in trouble...
- 1
Margaret Beaufort being the usual bitch I remember... she makes me his son found his head flying away from his body. As if Henry Tudor was not cause enough for that wish, but never mind.
I'm not sure how this helps Henry Tudor become king of England but if it does, this is good.
Otherwise, this is bad.
Otherwise, this is bad.
- 1
A York-Tudor alliance would be nice if it lasts.
Edmund is kind of being a hypocrite there, although I do sympathize with both him and Margaret Beaufort to some extent. Still, duties to the realm must come first. What will the Princesa think of these relationships if she ever finds out? We don't want to jeopardize the alliance with Castile, after all.
Edmund is kind of being a hypocrite there, although I do sympathize with both him and Margaret Beaufort to some extent. Still, duties to the realm must come first. What will the Princesa think of these relationships if she ever finds out? We don't want to jeopardize the alliance with Castile, after all.
- 1
Fb-fb:
To all - Still posting rather slowly at the moment, but I was able to write another scene this past week so success! I am one away from finishing the chapter in the writing and the next few are already plotted out at least in outline. I wish I could get back to the daily work, but RL continues to rear its ugly head. As always, thank you so much for following and giving comment. It keeps me motivated, to be sure!
Just youthful dalliance...for now.
Of course. You didn't think she could allow herself to be totally sidelined did you?
Indeed so, though I would posit that he has a lot of time on his hands right now so mischief is bound to happen.
You read that correctly. First when she nursed him back and then more as he returned (recall the bath tub scene) and though it has been left unscripted, there have been suggestions that he has been kind to her as she has continued to lobby for her son. Though ahistorical, I believe her actions in line with her nature as I read it.
As it may with all of us men from time to time.Edmund doing all his thinking with his 'little head' could eventually get him in trouble...
Is she a bitch here? Or is she earnest? Perhaps both?
Never underestimate a Beaufort coming in to throw a wrench into the machinery. It's what they live for.
No we don't. But as may be seen, this downtime has allowed a lot of one on one matches (of various kinds) to form. The next scene may provide another one (or more.)
To all - Still posting rather slowly at the moment, but I was able to write another scene this past week so success! I am one away from finishing the chapter in the writing and the next few are already plotted out at least in outline. I wish I could get back to the daily work, but RL continues to rear its ugly head. As always, thank you so much for following and giving comment. It keeps me motivated, to be sure!
- 1
- 1
Fotheringhay, January 1466
Dr. Morton rapped his cane to the desk as the young Duke of Buckingham, Henry Stafford’s eyes began to droop from the soporific lecture. The other boys allowed a slight laugh and the teacher offered them a harsh gaze as well, “You will attend, sirs!”
“He’s right, Hal,” the Duke of Gloucester suggested with a bright eye but no smile, “It is our history of the war with France.”
Dr. Morton showed appreciation, “My Lord is correct. And the complete story, from start to finish. As I have hoped to impress upon you, this version lasts far longer than what some wish to call the ‘hundred year’s war’ for it was no thing like a century. And it does take a time in the telling.”
The ten year old Henry Stafford lifted his head sharply and grinned, “Of course, master. We are all at your attention.”
“Very well,” Morton turned back to peruse his book and lined his finger across the page, “Now...where was I?”
“King John,” young Richard answered dutifully.
“Oh bother King John!” Stafford exclaimed, “When do we get to the Black Prince?!”
Dr. Morton stood over him with a stern eye, “Not for many a year if you keep this up!”
“Yet...” young Henry Tudor pressed forward to his desk, “...was it not true that the entire conflict surely depends upon King Edward named the third? His claim? True claim?”
“Well yes...of course...” Morton eyed young Tudor with appreciation, “...though there are other happenings that lead to such. One must take a time with the material and not linger too often on the bright spots, nor the dark. It is the totality that speaks to the times.”
Young Hal laughed and looked to his mates with a silly grin, “And takes a bloody long time, sirs!”
“You are incorrigible, my Lord, and I shall have you from this class!”
Henry Tudor offered a pleading eye and a whisper, “Please...be quiet, Hal. Let us have some more.”
Richard agreed and stood to his height over theirs, “You would indeed listen, sir. And hold your tongue. I know not why I must share a class with such young ones at any rate.”
Buckingham gave pause and then bowed his head, “Yes...I will, Dickon. Sorry.”
“Good,” Richard looked back to Dr. Morton and offered nod to continue.
“Then...as again...” Morton eyed the tall Richard with curiosity, “...and as I say...King John was left only with a small sliver of France and at this time, the ‘Angevin Empire’ so called was at an end. Yet this did not satisfy anyone. Nary a man to England, my Lords...but none to France either, to be sure. It was but a halt and only a simple spark would alight it once more.”
Stafford could not help himself, “And as Tudor says. It was then Edward’s turn!”
“You shall have to number some few Edwards to get there...my young Lord.”
“Edward third! We all know it,” he looked again to his mates, “You know it. And that gets us to the bloody Black Prince.”
Dr. Morton stood over him again, “I may not fathom how a lad of barely a score thinks to know more than I, yet I do know that your grandmother would protest loudly should I allow such blasphemy to occur within this chamber.”
“And she is not the only one!” Queen Cecily entered the class with several ladies in tow, “My sister would know well if her grandchild be a mongrel or worse!”
“My Lady Queen,” Dr. Morton showed a deep bow.
“Doctor?” Cecily questioned him with a sharp eye, “What do you teach these children?”
Morton lifted his head carefully, “History, Your Grace.”
“What history?” the Queen asked as she shifted to her son and lifted Richard’s head to hers, “You would tell your mother, Dickon. What does this man teach to you?”
He felt embarrassed and pulled away from her touch, “Oh, mama...it is just the wars with France. Dr. Morton does fine work with it. Except for these two.”
“Are you disrupting, my Lord of Buckingham?” Cecily shot him a glare.
He was quick to fall to a knee before her, “I beg all apology, my Lady!”
“Hmm!” she turned from him to young Tudor, “And you, my Lord?”
“Nay, Your Grace,” Henry Tudor followed Buckingham’s lead and bent the knee, “I wish to listen.”
Cecily then faced Dr. Morton with some satisfaction, “There you have it, sir. It may not be your students. Mayhap you should consult with Lord Oldhall and go over what topics may or may not be discussed within this class. You are newly back to court, Doctor, and one does wonder what worldly ideas one may hold at the now.”
“I would speak only of what is allowed,” Morton assured her.
“Yes, of course you will...” she gestured for the door, “...after you have spoken with the Baron Oldhall. Now if you do not mind, I have need of my Richard. Come, my son.”
Dr. Morton bowed again, “Aye, Your Grace. Yet my class...”
“You boys will behave?” Cecily narrowed a brow in question to them both.
Tudor was quick to nod and young Stafford smiled as he followed along.
“Then be off with you,” Cecily gestured again as she pulled Richard to her, “I hold more important people to visit.”
Richard was uncomfortable with her strong hand, “Mama...what is it?”
“I have need to speak with you, Dickon,” she answered as the teacher left the room and then she pulled him close, “And you will do me a favor.”
Cecily then smiled to the other boys, “My Lords Buckingham and Richmond...I trust that you shall not fail us.”
As they complied, the Queen walked Richard through the halls of the castle and spoke at nearly every turn, “Are you unhappy to here?”
“No, mama,” he answered without much conviction.
Cecily pressed harder to his shoulder, “You would speak to your mother.”
“I just...” he struggled to say it, “...I think that I am too old for them. I know not why I cannot be with George at Ludlow. You know I love it there and this place...it is so cold.”
“Do not cause me to make you spoiled, sir... for I shall not,” Cecily answered forcefully, “And you know well why you are here. Just as George holds to Wales, you would be the man at court in the north. These are all very important to your father the King and you should know the land. The people.”
He offered an understanding nod, “I’ll not argue with you, mama. Yet why these two? Can I not train to mine own?”
“Young Henry Stafford is the very Duke of Buckingham, sir!” she admonished, “The very height of nobility. First in the land beyond our House. You would make friends with him.”
Richard scoffed, “Yet mama! He is hardly ten in age...and I am three and ten! It is an eternity!”
“Hush,” she pulled him closer as they walked, “I need you to make things well with my sister and her grandson. You will do and do so with a smile.”
“Then why Tudor?” he questioned as he tried to wriggle away.
Cecily stopped him and looked up at his gangling form, “I may do so out of a courtesy, yet truly...I should never let that boy out of my sight. Nor you, yours. How do you find him?”
“What do you mean?” he asked with confusion.
She stepped to her toes, “You know what I mean. He may hold powerful friends. Have you seen any of these men?”
“Mama...I am not a spy,” Richard sighed, “I merely wish to read my books and study. Yet why are you so frightened of him?”
“I am not frightened,” Cecily held her head high, “He should be. It is a terrible thing to be born into a line if you are not in it.”
“You speak of the Lady Beaufort,” he replied and she scoffed.
Cecily pulled him along, “You know nothing of these things.”
“Yet mama...” he stopped her, “...I do. When we held such close time before as captives, I did study in the library of Hal’s grandfather. It was Master Croft that taught me ever to read. Poor old man.”
The Queen sadly recalled when Ludlow was sacked and she was forced to live her days as a prisoner with her young children, “Poor indeed.”
“And it did teach me about the Beauforts,” Richard continued proudly, “A pernicious clan, to be sure. And from the very first. You see, John of Gaunt was the third son and yet he also held a mistress and then...”
She pulled him closer, “I know it all, my son. I too am of the Beauforts and so are you. Yet what you do hold is the blood royal of a true Plantagenet. None other may claim that but the children of your father.”
“I know this,” he answered quickly.
Cecily held a hand to his cheek, “Yet many may try. And that boy in there holds what some could say is royal blood. Bastards they may be, but they are legion. And I would know where they are and what they are doing.”
“So you cause him as prisoner and then me as his?” Richard scoffed with little humor, “He and Hal get along fine. I’ll watch him. I guess.”
She showed concern, “Why do you not get along with them?”
He was certain, “Because they are so young! I should be off and training with Georgie! Like father! Like Ned!”
Cecily closed her eyes and held her breath for a moment before allowing a strong exhale and looked to her youngest son, “I shall not repeat my desires. And that is not why I have come here this day. One thing is duty...this other...”
“Is the favor?” he questioned, “You did mention it.”
“Very smart,” she held to his chin, “And it is about your father.”
“Papa?” Richard was once more confused.
The Queen leaned in, “He lingers too long within these lands. If he is to fight a war, he is to fight and not stand without the arena. And yet...this other does preoccupy his time and mind.”
“Mama, you are most dear,” he replied, “Yet you do speak in such riddles. Could you not tell it plainly?”
She backed away with a genuine worry to her face, “If you are so old at the now, then I shall tell you. I think your father...far too...generous...with the young Princess.”
Richard thought for a moment before questioning with profound shock, “You do not mean?!”
“So you are no young man anymore,” Cecily raised a brow to him, “And these are things of which adults speak. I do not accuse your father...yet...it is unnatural.”
“She is a girl...a child!” Richard replied.
Cecily was just as sure, “And he is a man. In your time, you will find that a man has an appetite...”
“I’m only...” he tried to protest for his young age but she continued.
“...an insatiable appetite, sir. And your father has many concerns. Would need a pleasure to take him from his pain.”
Richard shrugged, “I am unsure of what you ask of me, mama. Papa is papa. What may I do?”
“The girl is here,” Cecily held tightly to her son’s face, “You would make a friend to her. Know her likes and dislikes. Be a beau should you need.”
He backed away, “I am but three and…”
“An adult soon enough,” she was serious, “And your father’s son. You would do what is best for the realm. She is a girl and you are a young man. I should think an easy friendship.”
Richard remained confused, “She is Edmund’s intended.”
“Indeed she is!” Cecily held hands to her hips, “And shall remain so. The King is best suited by their match and when wed, he may then began again his adventures to France. He wishes this and no thing else!”
“Then why do you worry so?” he asked.
Cecily held to his hair, “You would be a busy boy and not to my business. Go and do, child.”
“Yes mama,” Richard answered dutifully even if he did not know why, “I will do.”
“Of course you will,” Cecily held firmly to his chin with a smile.
Last edited:
- 3
Probably rewrite it so the Queen is utterly delusional and wants to have somewhat nebulous sexual relations with boi Richard, who does it to get more power.
I don't believe for a moment King Richard is actually a kiddie fiddler, so I'm not sure where this has popped into the Queen's head. Did someone feed this to her and is trying to stirr trouble or is every queen of England just cursed to be paranoid and self destructive in this period?
I don't believe for a moment King Richard is actually a kiddie fiddler, so I'm not sure where this has popped into the Queen's head. Did someone feed this to her and is trying to stirr trouble or is every queen of England just cursed to be paranoid and self destructive in this period?
- 1
Fb-fb:
As to whether or not Richard is a "kiddie fiddler" as you put it (which is somewhat anachronistic for the times considering Isabella's age compared to Margaret Beaufort and her own trials and tribulations - at least she was married at the time, I suppose?), at best he could be considered a cheat, which would be out of character and at worst, an idiot, considering how much he wants the alliance with Castile. Not a good way to go about it.
Is it a not good look at anytime for a 55 year old man to be fiddling about with a not quite yet 15 year old girl, to be sure. Yet history does teach us that it would not be the first time nor the last that such things happened. However, your questioning of the veracity is quite on point. Does Cecily truly believe it? Would Richard ever do such a thing? Is someone spreading this rumor? And if so, why? These questions are asked to answer your own.
I won't give away the game but I will present as evidence that since Isabella arrived in England, Richard has taken a particular shine to her (see previous scenes.) In itself, it proves nothing. Yet it does give fodder to rumor and as we know (hopefully by now), to Cecily appearance is everything.
I don't have much more to add to such a pithy comment.
To all - I've started the next chapter in the writing. Huzzah!!
As to this scene, I am somewhat surprised with the limited comments so far that it is focused on the certainly salacious part of King Richard and his intentions with young Isabella. I will not say that it was not intended to provide a question. We do not yet know the answer. Well...I do, but you do not at the least. However, the framing device was the classroom and that was my hook. The idea of both young Richard (or as @TheButterflyComposer puts it...boi Richard) and Henry Tudor studying together is a major departure from the RL historical record. That was fun to me.
It is meant (the entirety of the scene) to set up future happenings in many ways. A veritable "where's Waldo" of what is to come. I tried to pack a lot into it, so kudos to those that spy the true threads independent of what a potential future propagandist might offer.
I should also add that I believe today is the final day to vote for the most recent ACA's and I encourage all of my readAARs to please go there and offer their vote if they have not already (I am going to try my damndest to do so as we speak.) As always, please do not feel the need to vote for this work though always appreciated. Especially as my output has been very little these last three months. Yet every writAAR that puts virtual pen to paper round these parts will appreciate your remembering of their work and effort. It is a vital part of what makes this place tick along these many years and your support means everything!
Who needs Shakespeare when you have me?
If, in fact, the Tudors do win out here, you are probably right. Anything to serve their propaganda given that they were a major benefactor to his career (and assuming he even existed, which I do.)
As to whether or not Richard is a "kiddie fiddler" as you put it (which is somewhat anachronistic for the times considering Isabella's age compared to Margaret Beaufort and her own trials and tribulations - at least she was married at the time, I suppose?), at best he could be considered a cheat, which would be out of character and at worst, an idiot, considering how much he wants the alliance with Castile. Not a good way to go about it.
Is it a not good look at anytime for a 55 year old man to be fiddling about with a not quite yet 15 year old girl, to be sure. Yet history does teach us that it would not be the first time nor the last that such things happened. However, your questioning of the veracity is quite on point. Does Cecily truly believe it? Would Richard ever do such a thing? Is someone spreading this rumor? And if so, why? These questions are asked to answer your own.
I won't give away the game but I will present as evidence that since Isabella arrived in England, Richard has taken a particular shine to her (see previous scenes.) In itself, it proves nothing. Yet it does give fodder to rumor and as we know (hopefully by now), to Cecily appearance is everything.
Sí
I don't have much more to add to such a pithy comment.
To all - I've started the next chapter in the writing. Huzzah!!
As to this scene, I am somewhat surprised with the limited comments so far that it is focused on the certainly salacious part of King Richard and his intentions with young Isabella. I will not say that it was not intended to provide a question. We do not yet know the answer. Well...I do, but you do not at the least. However, the framing device was the classroom and that was my hook. The idea of both young Richard (or as @TheButterflyComposer puts it...boi Richard) and Henry Tudor studying together is a major departure from the RL historical record. That was fun to me.
It is meant (the entirety of the scene) to set up future happenings in many ways. A veritable "where's Waldo" of what is to come. I tried to pack a lot into it, so kudos to those that spy the true threads independent of what a potential future propagandist might offer.
I should also add that I believe today is the final day to vote for the most recent ACA's and I encourage all of my readAARs to please go there and offer their vote if they have not already (I am going to try my damndest to do so as we speak.) As always, please do not feel the need to vote for this work though always appreciated. Especially as my output has been very little these last three months. Yet every writAAR that puts virtual pen to paper round these parts will appreciate your remembering of their work and effort. It is a vital part of what makes this place tick along these many years and your support means everything!
- 1
Probably then.
One thing I think writers should probably bear in mind about this period is that everyone did genuinely believe the religion they believed in. So whilst politics and lust and all that factor into decision making as history demonstrates, people were also really damn terrified of going to hell, being impious etc.
Richard has already dethroned the god anointed king of England and is naturally very conflicted about it, even though he didn't have any choice really. But he, and everyone else involved in that decision, is going to be worried about their immortal souls. I don't think they'll add infidelity atop that.
Everyone in the York faction should be praying and worrying quite a bit, and the Lancaster faction worrying that God is punishing them for their follies and also going to punish them for not supporting Henry (or Richard) enough.
I suppose it is a matter of degree, yet infidelity seems right up there with deposing a God anointed King. Hypocrisy may abound during that time and now.
A topic of discussion, to be sure, but a hypothetical as opposed to what is actually on the page. You make a very good point to be considered. Very true. Yet then, as now, who may pay so much attention?
Honestly? Everyone. It's difficult to determine exact levels of belief in all aspects of doctrine (which was never really the main focus until the Reformation to begin with) but devotion wise, Europe was DEVOUT. Its why oaths were generally effective. Why churches were built so often and so well. And why the wars of religion when they did start got bloody real fast and stayed that way.
Looking through a medieval lens, the Yorks are clearly somewhat favoured by God because they did usurp the crown and rule the kingdom now, but they were also punishes for rising up in the first place. Plenty of catastrophes hit them hard on the road to power, and so on.
Not to say that all the misbehaviour and such did not occur in those times but there were consequences, both spiritually and practically (damnation plus temporal loss of face, respect and increased risk of revolt because your ruler is wicked).
Now do the Popes. I shall await your treatise.
- 1
Now do the Popes. I shall await your treatise.
Basically the papacy got really corrupt really fast once proper kingdoms got established and people started to try and game the election process. And this got so bad that there were multiple continent sized wars over the papacy, then the protestant Reformation, counter Reformation, etc.
So square the circle. You're almost there.
We know this. Not new information at this place.
Ok, so in brief:
Adultery amongst the aristocracy was relatively commonplace in regards to 'lust', that is, passion affairs between nobles and mistresses. This was considered sinful and tended to have political, social and religious consequences.
And courts and noble society was set up in such a way that adultery could not be kept secret for very long if both parties were nobility, due to how, at least in this period of the high middle ages / renaissance, noble women were almost never alone. They always had multiple ladies in waiting arpund all the time, they ate, rode, slept and bathed together.
Men were similarly shadowed by their valet plus typically at least one other male companion most of the time, including bathing and sleeping. So whilst we know nobles cheated on one another, we KNOW they cheated because they couldn't hide it. There are two groups of servants constantly around taking everything in and spreading gossip or being bribed for info.
So secret romances and sex were possible, but very difficult to pull off given how many people would be in on the secret (and how many people would have to be avoided regularly to keep it between two people).
That out of the way, how did people react to adultery, sex with married people etc? Generally speaking, badly. It's one of the few consistent things the medieval church continually believed got you eternal damnation, because it required breaking solemn vows given to God (wedding vows were not between couples but to the Almighty). Women typically faced either execution or more typically a nunnery exile, whilst men much the same, although depending on quite how powerful the noble was, they might get away with doing something suitably repentive.
Societal and cultural taboo of affairs were pretty strong even when mistresses were more frequently apparent. Both families in the wars of the roses repeatedly wrote about how they were being punished for various affairs their ancestors had committed, and the ones they thesmevles were committing.
In regards to how far people believed in their religion...
The average noble prayed 5 times a day in private and attended mass daily, often twice. Public mass piety was high enough (and troublesome enough) that peasant frequently rioted if anyone inhibited Church business or officials, and seemed awfully willing to even kill their local nobility if they got too bad a sinful reputation. Almost every church built in Europe before the early modern period was built through local peasant donations of labour and resources. Nobles put themsvles in debt and gave away large portions of treasure and land to monasteries. The history of the HRE before 1600 is the history of secular rulers struggling with their personal piety, faith in the church and political alliances between other nobles. France spent one fifth of its entire national wealth on the first crusade, which was a religious war in which they did not expect (nor really ever gained) any land or wealth from. It was almost entirely zeal that propelled the first few crusades forwards, and these were by far the largest wars to occur in medieval Europe.
People being people, they still liked to have sex and drink to excess and kill things, but generally speaking they had to work around their faith to do it, worried constantly about whether they were being good Christians, and so on. People believed in their religions.
Adultery amongst the aristocracy was relatively commonplace in regards to 'lust', that is, passion affairs between nobles and mistresses. This was considered sinful and tended to have political, social and religious consequences.
And courts and noble society was set up in such a way that adultery could not be kept secret for very long if both parties were nobility, due to how, at least in this period of the high middle ages / renaissance, noble women were almost never alone. They always had multiple ladies in waiting arpund all the time, they ate, rode, slept and bathed together.
Men were similarly shadowed by their valet plus typically at least one other male companion most of the time, including bathing and sleeping. So whilst we know nobles cheated on one another, we KNOW they cheated because they couldn't hide it. There are two groups of servants constantly around taking everything in and spreading gossip or being bribed for info.
So secret romances and sex were possible, but very difficult to pull off given how many people would be in on the secret (and how many people would have to be avoided regularly to keep it between two people).
That out of the way, how did people react to adultery, sex with married people etc? Generally speaking, badly. It's one of the few consistent things the medieval church continually believed got you eternal damnation, because it required breaking solemn vows given to God (wedding vows were not between couples but to the Almighty). Women typically faced either execution or more typically a nunnery exile, whilst men much the same, although depending on quite how powerful the noble was, they might get away with doing something suitably repentive.
Societal and cultural taboo of affairs were pretty strong even when mistresses were more frequently apparent. Both families in the wars of the roses repeatedly wrote about how they were being punished for various affairs their ancestors had committed, and the ones they thesmevles were committing.
In regards to how far people believed in their religion...
The average noble prayed 5 times a day in private and attended mass daily, often twice. Public mass piety was high enough (and troublesome enough) that peasant frequently rioted if anyone inhibited Church business or officials, and seemed awfully willing to even kill their local nobility if they got too bad a sinful reputation. Almost every church built in Europe before the early modern period was built through local peasant donations of labour and resources. Nobles put themsvles in debt and gave away large portions of treasure and land to monasteries. The history of the HRE before 1600 is the history of secular rulers struggling with their personal piety, faith in the church and political alliances between other nobles. France spent one fifth of its entire national wealth on the first crusade, which was a religious war in which they did not expect (nor really ever gained) any land or wealth from. It was almost entirely zeal that propelled the first few crusades forwards, and these were by far the largest wars to occur in medieval Europe.
People being people, they still liked to have sex and drink to excess and kill things, but generally speaking they had to work around their faith to do it, worried constantly about whether they were being good Christians, and so on. People believed in their religions.
@coz1 for me the lack of comment is more that I'm not (yet) sure what to say. Many of your "chapters" (updates) are complicated and have layer upon layer to them. That's awesome for a writer, but I sometimes find it difficult to develop an opinion without reflection.
I'm still not certain what I think about the totality of the scene. But what I've decided so far is that.
1) I agree it would be out of King Richard's character to do as Queenish Margaret suggests. But then she's never been great at perceiving reality, so she may well have convinced herself that he would do this. She doesn't need more reasons to hate him, but she's never let a possible reason go to waste. She will make use of anything she can get.
2) In light of the question of whether the Queenish believes this line or not, it's interesting that she attempts to convince Little Richard of it. She's such a manipulator that she's manipulating her young son to be a pawn in her plans. Not that he was ever NOT a pawn to her. But it's a motherly betrayal, and perhaps he might eventually realize it as such.
3) Little Richard protests that he's "too old" to study with his younger compatriots. But he protests he is too young to be thinking in terms of what he or the elder Richard might be doing with Isabella, or how to get in her good graces (or how to wheedle into her bed??). How would this even be possible? Wouldn't he be whisked up as a fugitive if anyone even momentarily thought "hey you look kind of like the pretender prince..."?? Might Isabella herself even recognize this, and perhaps turn him in? What if she didn't turn him in, and it was later discovered she was hiding the secret? Is that disloyalty to her betrothed, and might it not wreck the alliance? Is this what the Queenish intends? Or is the Queenish completely oblivious that this is the fatal flaw to her plan?
Anyway, there's so much in this scene that I'm not sure of it all. May develop more thoughts later, but sometimes if I'm not sure of what I'm seeing I wait to see what others say, thinking that your kind and intelligent readers may illustrate things I hadn't recognized before.
@TheButterflyComposer @coz1 I once believed strongly, as a student of history, that previous generations of previous centuries were incredibly devout and sincere in their beliefs. That's what we're all taught in history class. But as I've aged and grown more familiar with people in general, and certain people in history in general, I've come to question this. Which places me in @coz1's camp on this.
I think previous generations of humans, be it the 1950s, 1910s, 1850s, 1750s, 1450s, 200s, etc., had very similar human natures to what we see around us today. And that is a lot of people not really knowing what to believe, and often not feeling very strongly in any direction. Even those today who call themselves Christians are predominantly agnostic in actual thought and behavior. How much does it infuse your daily life or lifestyle? Probably not very much, except on Sunday, if even then. I know Muslims who are like this also. And other religions. And yet, polls still find the majority of Christians, other religions, agnostics even, typically have a notion that there is likely a god who would/could judge their behavior, and therefore they should maybe not be as bad as they want to be.
Surely, for instance, American people of the 1910s before WWI were very Christian, and the people of rural hill country more so. And yet Sergeant Alvin York (WWI hero) indicated he was essentially a rebel/irreligious before a conversion experience, and all his friends were too. I/we find this a common account, actually. Throughout American History, even back to the 1600s and 1700s, there are chapters in the more detailed history books about "revivals" of Christian belief. Revivals from what? If they're all mostly Christian already.... This suggests they weren't. This suggests a human habituation toward agnosticism and rebellion that would occasionally reverse itself in revivals.
And, indeed, one of the primary themes of the Bible is the repeated inability of the Israelites themselves -- even those who had SEEN miracles and/or even those who had been chosen by God to be king and given great wisdom -- to quickly give up on worship of their God and enter into rebellion and "do as thou wilt" selfish self-pleasuring activities. "Gosh, you know we haven't seen that Moses guy in a couple weeks now... Going on five weeks. Let's talk his brother into making a golden calf and we'll worship that instead of this Yahweh god that used to hang around with us in that pillar of fire..."
Anyway... I think the idea that previous generations/centuries were very devout and insistently Christian is an oversimplification that flies in the face of much of what we actually know of human history and human behavior and habituation. I can see the arguments in the other direction have merit, but on the whole I believe they're outweighed by the contrary.
Rensslaer
I'm still not certain what I think about the totality of the scene. But what I've decided so far is that.
1) I agree it would be out of King Richard's character to do as Queenish Margaret suggests. But then she's never been great at perceiving reality, so she may well have convinced herself that he would do this. She doesn't need more reasons to hate him, but she's never let a possible reason go to waste. She will make use of anything she can get.
2) In light of the question of whether the Queenish believes this line or not, it's interesting that she attempts to convince Little Richard of it. She's such a manipulator that she's manipulating her young son to be a pawn in her plans. Not that he was ever NOT a pawn to her. But it's a motherly betrayal, and perhaps he might eventually realize it as such.
3) Little Richard protests that he's "too old" to study with his younger compatriots. But he protests he is too young to be thinking in terms of what he or the elder Richard might be doing with Isabella, or how to get in her good graces (or how to wheedle into her bed??). How would this even be possible? Wouldn't he be whisked up as a fugitive if anyone even momentarily thought "hey you look kind of like the pretender prince..."?? Might Isabella herself even recognize this, and perhaps turn him in? What if she didn't turn him in, and it was later discovered she was hiding the secret? Is that disloyalty to her betrothed, and might it not wreck the alliance? Is this what the Queenish intends? Or is the Queenish completely oblivious that this is the fatal flaw to her plan?
Anyway, there's so much in this scene that I'm not sure of it all. May develop more thoughts later, but sometimes if I'm not sure of what I'm seeing I wait to see what others say, thinking that your kind and intelligent readers may illustrate things I hadn't recognized before.
@TheButterflyComposer @coz1 I once believed strongly, as a student of history, that previous generations of previous centuries were incredibly devout and sincere in their beliefs. That's what we're all taught in history class. But as I've aged and grown more familiar with people in general, and certain people in history in general, I've come to question this. Which places me in @coz1's camp on this.
I think previous generations of humans, be it the 1950s, 1910s, 1850s, 1750s, 1450s, 200s, etc., had very similar human natures to what we see around us today. And that is a lot of people not really knowing what to believe, and often not feeling very strongly in any direction. Even those today who call themselves Christians are predominantly agnostic in actual thought and behavior. How much does it infuse your daily life or lifestyle? Probably not very much, except on Sunday, if even then. I know Muslims who are like this also. And other religions. And yet, polls still find the majority of Christians, other religions, agnostics even, typically have a notion that there is likely a god who would/could judge their behavior, and therefore they should maybe not be as bad as they want to be.
Surely, for instance, American people of the 1910s before WWI were very Christian, and the people of rural hill country more so. And yet Sergeant Alvin York (WWI hero) indicated he was essentially a rebel/irreligious before a conversion experience, and all his friends were too. I/we find this a common account, actually. Throughout American History, even back to the 1600s and 1700s, there are chapters in the more detailed history books about "revivals" of Christian belief. Revivals from what? If they're all mostly Christian already.... This suggests they weren't. This suggests a human habituation toward agnosticism and rebellion that would occasionally reverse itself in revivals.
And, indeed, one of the primary themes of the Bible is the repeated inability of the Israelites themselves -- even those who had SEEN miracles and/or even those who had been chosen by God to be king and given great wisdom -- to quickly give up on worship of their God and enter into rebellion and "do as thou wilt" selfish self-pleasuring activities. "Gosh, you know we haven't seen that Moses guy in a couple weeks now... Going on five weeks. Let's talk his brother into making a golden calf and we'll worship that instead of this Yahweh god that used to hang around with us in that pillar of fire..."
Anyway... I think the idea that previous generations/centuries were very devout and insistently Christian is an oversimplification that flies in the face of much of what we actually know of human history and human behavior and habituation. I can see the arguments in the other direction have merit, but on the whole I believe they're outweighed by the contrary.
Rensslaer
- 1